Tuesday, May 09, 2006

Who will bell the cat?

Top news billing is split between Michael Hayden's nomination as head of the
CIA and President Ahmadinejad's mystery letter to GWB. In the second tier
is President Bush's call for a UN "Peace Force" to stop the killings
in Darfur. The Boston
Globe described what the President had in mind:

WASHINGTON -- President Bush called yesterday for the United Nations to
take over peacekeeping in the Darfur region of Sudan and promised to expedite
food aid. He welcomed a proposed peace accord as ''the beginnings of
hope" for Darfur's poverty-stricken population. Bush said Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice would go to the United Nations today to press for a new
UN resolution increasing the number of peacekeepers. ...

In New York, John R. Bolton, the US ambassador to the United Nations, said
the Security Council would meet today on Darfur. Bolton said the United States
was circulating a proposed resolution that would extend the UN peacekeeping in
southern Sudan to the Western Darfur region. That 10,000-strong force is
monitoring a January 2005 peace accord that ended a 21-year civil war between
the Sudanese government and southern rebels that cost millions of lives.

Mark Steyn, writing in the Australian
is skeptical about whether any UN intervention force however large can help
Darfur at all. Although he doesn't say directly, his disbelief in the UN appears
rooted in a conviction that the World Organization exists precisely to do
nothing. Its primary goal insofar as possible is to lock national boundaries and
regimes in place and thereby "preserve the peace". Not only is the UN
dedicated to preserving the principle of noninterference in the "internal
affair of nations" it exists precisely to maintain it. Because the mission
of the UN from its inception was to promote stasis -- not a bad thing during the
Cold War when the supreme value was the maintenance of peace -- it is unsuited
to action which perforce dismantles genocidal states and redraws boundaries.
Committed to inaction, the UN becomes the graveyard of action. To those who want
to stop the killings in Darfur via the UN Steyn says:

If you think the case for intervention in Darfur depends on whether or not
the Chinese guy raises his hand, sorry, you're not being serious. The good
people of Darfur have been entrusted to the legitimacy of the UN for more than
two years and it's killing them. In 2004, after months of expressing deep
concern, grave concern, deep concern over the graves and deep grave concern
over whether the graves were deep enough, Kofi Annan took decisive action and
appointed a UN committee to look into what's going on. Eventually, they
reported back that it's not genocide.

Thank goodness for that. Because, as yet another Kofi-appointed UN
committee boldly declared, "genocide anywhere is a threat to the security
of all and should never be tolerated". So fortunately what's going on in
the Sudan isn't genocide. Instead, it's just hundreds of thousands of corpses
who happen to be from the same ethnic group, which means the UN can go on
tolerating it until everyone's dead, at which point the so-called "decent
left" can support a "multinational" force under the auspices of
the Arab League going in to ensure the corpses don't pollute the water supply.

Victor Davis
Hanson in an interview with Hugh Hewitt astutely remarked that the UN was
principally used to give the appearance of action by states who actually
wanted to do nothing.

And we also know that when the United Nations takes a role in things, that
people, as Mark Steyn pointed out, die. They simply die because the United
Nations acts as if it's going to do things, so it thwarts unilateralism on
the part of responsible parties, and it does nothing, and people perish and
are forgotten.

Austin Bay
notes that by any rational standard the International Community would be less
worried about Darfur than the Congo which journalist Johann
Hari calls the "the deadliest war since Adolf Hitler’s armies marched
across Europe". How does the Congo compare with Darfur?

The Second Congo War was a
conflict that took place largely in the territory of Democratic Republic
of the Congo (formerly Zaire). The war began in 1998 and officially
ended in 2003 when a Transitional Government took power. The widest
interstate war in modern African history, it directly involved nine
African nations, as well as about twenty armed groups, and earned the
epithets of "Africa's World War" and the Great War of
Africa". An estimated 3.8 million people died, mostly from
starvation and disease brought about by the deadliest conflict since
World War II. Millions more were displaced from their homes or sought
asylum in neighboring countries.

Despite a formal end to the war in July 2003 and an agreement by the
former belligerents to create a government of national unity, the state
remains weak and much of the eastern region continues to suffer from
violent conflict. In 2004, an estimated one thousand people died every
day from violence and disruptions to basic social services and food
supply. Sporadic outbreaks of fighting continue to lead to large scale
forced migration.

The Darfur conflict is an
ongoing conflict in the Darfur region of western Sudan, mainly between
the Janjaweed, a militia group recruited from local Arab tribes, and the
non-Arab peoples of the region. The Sudanese government, while publicly
denying that it supports the Janjaweed, is providing arms and assistance
and has participated in joint attacks with the group. The conflict began
in February 2003.

The conflict has been described by the Western media as "ethnic
cleansing" and "genocide". In September 2004, the World
Health Organization (WHO) estimated there have been 50,000 deaths in
Darfur since the beginning of the conflict, mostly as a result of
starvation. That estimate rose in October to 71,000 deaths due to
starvation and disease between March and October 2004 alone. Both of
these figures were misleading, because they only considered short
periods and limited locations. A recent British Parliamentary Report
estimates that over 300,000 people have already died, and others have
estimated even more [1] the United Nations estimates that 180,000 have
died in the past eighteen months of the conflict. [2] More than 1.8
million people have been displaced from their homes. Two hundred
thousand have fled to neighboring Chad.

Bad as Darfur is the Congo by any measurement is far worse. Yet the Congo already
has a UN Peacekeeping team: MONUC
which is the largest UN Peacekeeping force in the world with over 16,000
soldiers. It is 50% larger than the proposed Peacekeeping Force for Darfur. And
how effective is MONUC? While its spokesmen have described
it as the 'only hope' of the Congolese President Musseveni of Uganda called
it "useless" and no more than a bunch of tourists. So while the
effectiveness of a 10,000 man UN Peacekeeping team in Darfur has yet to be
empirically tested, there are historical grounds for thinking they will be no
more effective than 10, 100 or 1,000 UN soldiers, and possibly as effective as
100,000.

Victor Hanson thinks that the President in calling for a UN solution to
Darfur is doing nothing more than saying, 'here, you do it.'

So I think the United States is saying look, we're willing to step forward,
but we're not going to do this anymore where we get hung out to dry in Iraq
and Afghanistan, and the Balkans, and Panama. Every time we try to do
something to stop a dictator or a thug, we have these triangulators who want
it to be done, but not us to do it. So I think we're sort of seeing an
American zen now, where the United States is trying to say you wanted this
type of world, you have it. And then yet not being completely nihilistic, in
the sense that we will act, finally, if no one else will, but we want this
other dialogue to play out.

And of course the UN won't. Because any effective change in Darfur means
altering the politics within the Sudan which is precisely what the UN will
prevent at all costs. Mark Steyn describes the deadly gap between the wish and
the deed that haunts international politics.

What's the quintessential leftist cause? It's the one you see on a
gazillion bumper stickers: Free Tibet. Every college in the US has a Free
Tibet society: There's the Indiana University Students for a Free Tibet, and
the University of Wisconsin-Madison Students for a Free Tibet, and the
Students for a Free Tibet University of Michigan Chapter. Everyone's for a
free Tibet, but no one's for freeing Tibet.

No one is willing to do what is necessary, not when they realize what it
would take.

102 Comments:

Although it probably will distress some on this blog to hear it, this sort of situation illustrates an aspect of the “femainization” of liberalism.

It reminds one of those cases where a woman calls the police because her husband is not behaving to suit her. The police only have the options to lock the guy up or just leave. What the woman wants is for them to stand there, hands near but not on their guns, and make sure that he behaves as she wishes – cuts the grass, drinks less, does the dishes, whatever – and that is not an option the police have – and in a free society, they really should not have it.

The only action the U.S. has – and the only one really available to the U.N. – is to go in and kill the people who are causing the problem until they stop. The people most distressed over the current situation would also be the ones that would be most distressed over the brutal efficiency of our armed forces. So to get their way – both their ways – the only thing we can do is – nothing.

Tibet is rooted in Eastern mysticism and draws the nuts and berries crowd. Course, the Dali Lhama is a super cool dude. The further one follows the snake into the belly of deepest darkest Africa, the less the Starbucks set cares. After all, it is not about humanity, it is about vanity and choosing trendy causes.

I have to agree with RWE. There needs to be a period of reassesment as to what American interests are in today's world. There clearly is no near end to this current cycle of unrest and readjustment. There is no political, military or economic cost to China, Iran, Russia, Venezuela or a host of other potential adversaries in the US taking the 911 call and when we get there we get stoned by the usual suspects.

The US needs to let the UN and international community pass or fail on Iran. Take a lesson from our illegal immigrants and let the world enjoy a day, a week, a month and then a year without Americans.

Steyn seems to have a little fun throwing big words right back at the jawboning do-nothing Left:

"Idealism asinertia is the hallmark of the movement.

"... At some point, the Left has to decide whether it stands for anything other than self-congratulatory passivity and the fetishisation of a failed and corrupt transnationalism. As Alexander Downer put it: "Outcomes are more important than blind faith in the principles of non-intervention, sovereignty and multilateralism."

Speaking of Tibet, interesting how China figures heavily into the Iran and Sudan issues we're bringing to the UNSC; there's no denying that the PRC is a major world player now and won't be shy about voting its interests. The good news is that it won't actually internalize the UN claptrap about non-intervention and multilateralism. The bad news is that it won't, either.

"Well, the American left seems to've discovered Darfur, so maybe our paralysis is coming to an end?"

They may have but they'll insist that the Darfur crisis be resolved through nonviolent nonconfrontational means with appropriate concerns for the cultural sensitivities of the different factions involved, i.e. do nothing...

RWE said:

"The only action the U.S. has – and the only one really available to the U.N. – is to go in and kill the people who are causing the problem until they stop."

Killing the bad guys is the obvious solution.

It's also obvious the UN is unable to do that. The US in its present form should not adopt the role of world policeman. If a world policeman is required then either the United States must reconstitute itself into an imperial power (a bad idea) or an international alliance will have to be created to assume that role.

--- A Modest Proposal ---

I'd like to see something that's a cross between NATO and the British Commonwealth come into existance. Call it the "League of Democratic Nations". Only genuine democracies could join the league. This requirement would exclude China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc. because they are not genuine democracies. If a member state became undemocratic then it would be expelled from the league.

There would be a division of political power where a proposal for military action could only come from one house where political authority was based upon one nation / one vote. Call this house the "Legislature". Actual execution of a military proposal would fall under a second house's authority where the vote was based upon actual military and financial contribution. Call this second house the "Senate". Voting within the Senate would be like a stock holders vote during a corporate election, i.e. the more military and financial resources a nation contributed to the league then the greater its vote in the Senate. The Legislature would be tasked with drafting regulations and resolutions (initiating military action) along with admitting and expelling member states. The Senate could veto any regulation produced by the Legislature but could not initiate any action without authority from the Legislature. There would be a huge standing army functioning under the League of Democractic Nations with its own command hierarchy, uniform and flag. Soldiers and politicians serving under the League would swear an oath to the League's constitution. The first article of this constitution would be that the League could never use coercive force against a member state (a soldier within the League would never have to fight against his own nation). The second article of the constituion would be that no member nation would be allowed to remain a member of the League if it used its national resources with hostile intend against the League or any other member state of the League (play nice or be banished from the League).

A League of Democractic Nations would provide a mechanism for "moral war". It would also promote democracy and ultimatly provide a mechanism for abolishing international war, i.e. if all nations of the world were members of the League then war would be legally impossible.

It is interesting to see criticisms of the UN's failure to act decisively as if it were an entity like a national government that had the power and authority to act. I saw Kofi the other day on PBS talking about how getting the UN to respond to a crisis is much like if a fire breaks out in town and then the fire station must be built and trucks acquired and populated with fire fighters before the fire could be fought. In addition to this you need to get all the principals together to actually make the decision to decide whether it is indeed a fire and whether it needs to be fought. There certainly do seem to be problems with this approach and that s why I’ve been an advocate for institutions such as the ICC and no the ICC as presently operating is not sufficient to solve the problems such as Darfur but it could be developed to better address these problems. One key step would be to get the US to sign on and push to give it teeth.

Of course if Mr Bush wanted to "upset the apple cart" at the UN he could.That is furthest from his desires. Mr Bush's actions prove the point. His and the other Yale men of the Skull & Bones, like JFKerry are striving for a New World Order.Economic, Political and Strategic realignements, with Peace, Stability & Prosperity supreme.

Open Borders, low tariffs, labor dumping, intellectual theft are all to become common denominators of the New Age.A Global Village.

Somebody somewhere is gonna have the pencil, tho, Ash, and will write out who is the cop and who is the criminal. Ready to be perpetually indicted, are you, for being a "stronger" (that is, ipso-facto "unfair") nation?

Eggplant, 9:27, your suggestions sounds like NATO and the EU merged. The problem is that any of the countries involved are also signatories to the UN treaties and the UN is sodden with Russian and Chinese Security Council negative control. The US would never go for it. In a way it is similar to the current mess with the CIA. We have dueling bureaucracies, most of whom are ineffective and none of them want to die.

rwe said: The only action the U.S. has – and the only one really available to the U.N. – is to go in and kill the people who are causing the problem until they stop."

This is why we're not going in. No American president is going to be interested in 24/7 video coverage of mostly-white US troops killing large numbers of Black Africans (All sides of the conflict are black. The northern "Arabs" are just a slightly lighter shade).

Our best option is to have Special Forces arm and train the southerners, and let them win their own liberty. If they win it themselves, they're more likely to keep it over the long term.

But the UN would have a fit over the distribution of weapons to non-sovereign entities

All the UN's structural problems could be seen as insoluble so long as it contains so many legal criminals. As with everything, all problems are people problems. The John Bolton Reform Portfolios is a rare anomaly, and just has to be waited out. Criminals always have the advantage, they only need to win--while the good guys need to first hold principles.

The SWAT team does not hand out parking tickets, nor should it get second-guessed when it handles the gang with the hostages in the bank by killing all of them, and maybe a couple of hostages, too. The beat cops could not handle it, so they called in the SWAT team and got what they asked for.

The problem is there are no beat cops for some areas, - or none that are brave enough - so all they have is the SWAT Team. And they don't like its tactics, even when those are the only thing that works in some cases.

I realize that this is off-topic, but as a frequent reader of The Belmont Club and admirer of Wretchard's analysis, I wanted to bring this to the attention of the Blogsphere.

Dailybulletin.com is reporting that the U.S. Border Patrol is documenting the locations of groups of Minutemen on the southern border and passing that information on to the Mexican government (http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_3799653).

I am so frustrated by this report that I don't know what to do or say. I think it would at least be beneficial if more members of the blogsphere started talking about this, because I doubt that the MSM is going to give it any coverage.

eggplant has laid out an interesting formalism on an idea that I think is LONG OVERDUE. If you agree to participate in a pointless, ritualistic exercise in futility (such as the UN), you forfeit the right to be taken seriously, in my book. Proposing that the UN "do something" about Darfur is worse than saying nothing. GWB looks the fool playing to that pathetic institution. A "League of Democracies" could begin to build a defensible moral high ground from which to bludgeon and marginalize those players on the world stage (e.g. Russia, China, etc.) that want the legitimacy without paying the price of human & political rights.

Let's just find a better word for "League". Too much Wilsonian-failure baggage!

Talking about Third World kleptocratic cultural basket cases and the West’s third string junior high school diplomatic team, it seems that Venezuela’s President Chavez is rapidly dragging his nation down the road to ruin traveled by the once prosperous Belgian Congo. Buddy larsen should have a field day with this news coming out of Russia per MOSNEWS.COM.

Under the inspired fiduciary leadership of Mr. Chavez, Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) is producing at only 40% of capacity. Consequently, it is being reported that he will be obliged to purchase $2 billion worth of petroleum from his friend Mr. Putin in order to meet contractual commitments. Rumor has it that Mr. Chavez’s ideology has run aground on the reef of technical reality. Yes, Marx may have been a ruffian, but he was no roughneck.

You mean the US isn't going to spend a whit of capital to get involved in another proxy war, over ground of little strategic value, with Iran/Russia/China? For once, Mr. Bush seems to have managed to keep his eyes on the prize. The Chinese and the Russians have been playing the Security Council since the Darfur story broke. Why? To force the US to bear the primary burden of soldiers, blood, and treasure. Please, please let us give this one a pass. Maybe concerned citizens can form their own anti-genocide "Abraham Lincoln Brigades". Once upon a time, people used to actually take action when a cause really mattered to them. Now they consider talking an action verb.

Buddy Larsen said... Well, the American left seems to've discovered Darfur, so maybe our paralysis is coming to an end?

The American Left discovers conflicts and figures out how to screw them to the wall, witness Vietnam, Iraq, and sundry others.Darfur will be yet another hand-wringing exercise, inadequate action, and further loss of life, none of which should be American.The EU is waiting us out, figuring that we will have to step in sooner or later, since we have a moral imperative to do so, and the resources to waste as well. Bush is right to throw it back to the UN.

I always return to this when this topic comes up, precisely because nobody has formulated an alternative answer. From David Reiff's 1999 essay on Liberal Imperialism:

However, the fact that while the NATO powers are often willing to intervene they have also shown themselves almost never willing to take casualties suggests that this commitment is as much about having fallen into a rhetorical trap as about being guided by a new moralizing principle. The means employed simply do not match the high-flown rhetoric about ends. There have been times during the Kosovo crisis, as there were during the Bosnian war and the Rwandan emergency, when it has appeared that Western involvement came about because the leaders of the Western countries no longer found it politically possible to get up at a press conference before a television audience and say, in effect, "Sorry about the starving X's or the ethnically cleansed Y's. It's just awful what's happening to them, but frankly they don't have any oil, nor are those that oppress them a threat to us. So you, Mr. and Ms. Voter, will have to continue to watch the slaughter on the evening news until it burns itself out."

Of course, that is precisely what members of the policy elites in Washington, Brussels, Paris, London, or Berlin say in private to one another all the time. But public language, along with public pressure, is often what drives policy. By now, commonplace expressions of realism in international affairs have become, to borrow the Early Christian theological distinction between elite and mass Christianity, an esoteric language restricted by and large to policymakers when they are out of public view. It is the language of human rights and humanitarianism that now stands as the exoteric language of public discourse about such questions. What this demonstrates is the degree to which there really has been a human rights revolution in the attitudes, though not to nearly the same degree in the practices, of the Western public and its poll-addicted, pandering governments [...]

Time and time again, our moral ambitions have been revealed as being far larger than our political, military, or even cognitive means [...]

The conclusion is inescapable. At the present time, only the West has both the power and, however intermittently, the readiness to act. And by the West, one really means the United States. Obviously, to say that America could act effectively if it chose to do so as, yes, the world's policeman of last resort, is not the same thing as saying that it should. Those who argue, as George Kennan has done, that we overestimate ourselves when we believe we can right the wrongs of the world, must be listened to seriously. So should the views of principled isolationists. And those on what remains of the left who insist that the result of such a broad licensing of American power will be a further entrenchment of America's hegemony over the rest of the world are also unquestionably correct.

But the implications of not doing anything are equally clear. Those who fear American power are-this is absolutely certain-condemning other people to death [...]

On another web site a critic of the war in Iraq wanted to know why we were'nt in places like zimbabwe.

My answer attempted to make a few points. First, zimbabwe has limited national security impact, next the left will raise issues like this because they hate it when we use our power to improve our position and finally if people think this is such a tragedy let them don their birkenstocks and go to zimbabwe themselves.

It's all just part of the internal contradictions that describe the modern left.

While we are at it, can't we please quit pretending that Putin and Russia are anything more than they are? Why are they in the G8? They are no help to us anywhere. I liked them better as the evil empire.

But I do like the idea of a Freedom Corps (not Brigade, that is far too small), manned by the free states of the world, and directed much as eggplant has outlined, to address the problems like Darfur and the Congo, or for that matter, Iran. The UN is useless now, and should be bypassed when real action is needed. This is especially true in Africa with their voting block that can create havoc with any rational plan the UN might come up with.

I like to think the Abraham Linking Brigade does do *some* good, Brett.

Allen, it doesn't surprise me in the least--I worked for CorpoVen, under contact to Fluidos de Perforacion, for several years either side of '80, and the nepotism wasn't just rife, it was SOP in management. I could tell you some stories of rank incompetence and plain old extravagently dangerous and wasteful nuttiness, that you would simply not believe. Of course that's been some time ago, as that old fool in the mirror keeps reminding me. But, it has to do with the Oil Curse, where in the end free money comes outta the ground, quickly paying for all sins.

Condi and Georgia's Playhouse - What do you think? Yeah, I know, just a mite too coarse, perhaps, bellicose even. With some honing, though, something sentimental might come of it.

Listening to Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice sometimes puts me in mind of Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland. “Hey, kids, let’s do a Cole Porter musical!” “Gee, Judy, it will be so neat, I’ve gotta harmonic and you’ve got great-grandma’s piano, why, I just know we can do it.”

At some point during the umpteenth salvation of Africa, I wonder if the whiz-kids in DC could play like the southern border is being overrun by attack monkeys.

Putting the UN in charge of a war-torn and terrible nation is like putting the stooges in charge of building a nuclear weapon. Whatever good comes of it is total luck and miraculous divine intervention.

Actually it's worse in a way, because the UN is so corrupt and is still having problems with turning young refugee girls into entertainment.

The only way to fix these countries is to crush the governments, armies, and rebels and rebuild the nation Afghanistan-style. Thank you, no.

The basic duty of any sovereign state is to defend its own interests. By going into Afghanistan and then Iraq, and shaking up the poisonous Mid East culture, the US has been acting in its own interest... because the US has been, is and will be the prime target for the Wahabbi people.

The Left's problem is that it is so comfy cosy that it has no clue that "self defense" is necessary to their pleasant rich lives.

As to central Africa, when Uganda and Rwanda sort things out, and kill enough of themselves and each other (ie, like the Wuropean 30 Years War, or the 500's and 600s post Roman World...) central Africa will take its place on the World Stage. The area is lucky that the rest of the world has as yet not lumbered it with enough UN "peacekeepers" to make a real difference (ie, like in Palestine/Israel).

As to Darfur, its fate is to spend the 21sr Century within the gentle hands of the Chinese.

Another thought about The Left, with its love of Olde Europe and the kindly UN, their trust in University Learning, government welfare and wonderful Kofi, and all their other totems: the fact is that none of their questions, nor any of their answers have solved any of our problems post 9/11.

All the smart people in Australia, and the US are in the Military. This is so very interesting, is it not?

ahh, but our friend Osama staged out of Sudan for many years. The chaos there was and continues to be a breeding ground of Mohammedan Terror.Just one of the many training grounds for the foreign combatants.

Now, it's fine by me, to leave the cesspools of Africa to bubble and churn. But when the sludge gets flung up on a New York or DC doorstep, don't complain here.

There is either an Enemy that should be fought, or not.

The lesson of todays thread is quite evident, especially as it relates to the Mohammedan Wars and Mr Bush's support, ideologically.

Does the world really need more, ultimately parasitic organizations? Serious leadership would, I believe, suffice. Consider a single problem facing the United States and, then, suppose the following communication was delivered this afternoon.

Dear Vincente,

As you are well aware, reluctantly the United States has for the past two decades served as Mexico’s de facto reserve catchment. Your government and that of your predecessors has done nothing to halt the invasion of the United States by the citizens of Mexico. I am reliably told that the extent of your government’s involvement at our shared border is the collection of a $0.25 entrance and exit fee. At this writing, I am informed that there may be as many as 20,000,000 Mexican illegal aliens within the borders of the Untied States. This will not stand.

You are informed hereby that unless the government of Mexico halts the exodus of its citizens into the United States within thirty days, my government will treat your country as a belligerent. To insure your conscientious compliance with this ultimatum, I have, today, ordered the Marine Corps to standup its 3rd Division, and have ordered all non-essential military and civilian personnel home from Asia and Europe. The several infantry and armored divisions now headquartered in Texas will be moved to the border forthwith. Moreover, all state and local law enforcement officers and all vigilance committees within 100 miles of the Mexican border will be federally deputized. The president of South Korea has been notified to prepare for the defense of his country in conjunction with our Pacific fleet, if necessary. The government of Taiwan likewise was so instructed. For the sake of absolute clarity, the governments of both North Korea and China have received the following message: “Don’t.” The Japanese Prime Minister has kindly offered Japan’s ports for the unrestricted use of the Fleet and the United States will undertake with Japan the rapid development and deployment of such strategic weapons as Japan may require for its defense.

If at the end of thirty days, Mexico has not solved its problem, I shall order the annexation of the Mexican states of Coahuila, Tamaulipas, Nuevo León, Chihuahua, Sonora, Baja California, and such other territory deemed necessary to secure the border of the United States. Forthwith, illegal aliens will be captured and returned to Mexico in the most efficient and humane manner possible; but, make no mistake, my dear friend, returned they shall be to those states named above. Moreover, because there are literally hundreds of thousands of Hispanic-Americans anxious to see structural political and economic changes within Mexico, volunteers will be sought to administer the governments of the newly acquired Territory of New America, until such time as those former Mexican states can be admitted into the United States.

Since time is the essence, the clock starts now.

Oh, no wall will be constructed under my administration. The rule of law will prevail.

There is some misunderstanding. It is being reported that Venezuelan production is down 60% under Mr. Chavez. He is, it seems, unable to meet his contractural obligations to Germany, to the tune of approximately $2 billion in petroleum products, by today's count. The Russians may be willing to bail him out.

allen,napkin numbers but w'oil at $702 Billion USD is about28.5 million barrels or about 22 days worth of exports to US.

That may be signifigant, in conjuction with droppinh exports to US as well.But the 60% number should be taken with a grain of salt, if the only the evidence is sales of delivery contracts between suppliers.

Granted production is off from the past averages, under Hugo's management, but a 60% drop would have affected more than what has been evidenced, so far, me thinks.

It will be argued today that the rearmament of Japan will lead to an arms race between the United States and Japan on one side and China on the other. That’s right, and China will loose that race. Not only will China be unable to keep up, but, it will, in my opinion have to divert enormous resources to its military build-up, which will come at the expense of its consumer-based industries. Consequently, India’s ascension to dominance as Asia’s economic superpower will be accelerated at China’s expense.

When all is said and done, India, China, North Korea, Japan, Pakistan, Russia, and the United States will make up Asia’s nuclear club. It is also altogether possible that Australia will be admitted. Unless one of these powers decides to press the M.A.D. button, equilibrium will be established, but to China’s detriment. This being the case, Taiwan will fall.

Whatever may have happened 400 years ago on the island of Formosa, Taiwan is Chinese. And like Hong Kong, it is indefensible. Likewise, Taiwan is far too valuable to the mainland to be wantonly destroyed in a fit of uncharacteristic pique.

Yeh--that's way too big a number--unless he's holding it off the market--price manipulating (a commie automatically shuts down the transparancy that mkts & capital need to operate). Rec further investigation--

I don't think the United Nations is much different from the Holy Roman Empire.

I had been under the impression that the principal reason why the United Nations exists is to create the impression of trying to solve humanitarian crises while making sure that nothing of consequence actually gets done. That, and giving vent to anti-Americanism.

Your 12:49 PM - But the 60% number should be taken with a grain of salt

Fair enough. They report, we decide.

I brought this to the attention of Belmont solely to make the point that our friends the Germans may discover Mr. Chavez in breach of contract. The Germans reportedly are ready to become reliant on the Russians. Any business Mr. Bush may want to do in Africa could, thereby, be harmed.

While the Romans were mad about augury, they usually had ample time to compensate for any of its shortcomings. It's a long walk from southern Gaul to the English Channel, for instance. Mr. Bush has no such luxury. Who knows what he saw in Mr. Putin's soul? In future, however, I recommend Madame Toussaint for that "old black magic." She can be found in Port Au Prince, I think.

The left is in a sovereignty trap. As a way to criticize the war the left spent a lot of effort convincing the world that Iraq was a sovereign nation and was therefore immune to external military action.

now we see the sadness in the Sudan and zimbabwe and other places and suddenly sovereignty seems to be less of an issue for the left.

So Iran is a sovereign nation and cannot be touched by American, no matter how existential the threat they pose.

But the Sudan must garner our immediate attention, sovereignty be damned.

I guess its a "feelings" thing.

the catholics have a ritual "the stations of the cross". In the modern era of diplomacy there is a different set of stations that a pentitent must walk.

the UN, like NATO, the EU and others, is simply one more place where the Americans must stop, genuflect and mumble before moving to action.

I'm sorry, there comes a point at which I begin to think that situations such as the Congo War ( which, let's be honest, has been festering since Moise Tshombe was running around Katanga Province with Mad Mike Hoare and Bob Denard back in 1965...), the Rwandan Genocide, and Darfur, will not be paid attention to by the glitterati and the Bush Hating chattering classes simply because it's Just Another Tribal War In Africa.

It ain't Tibet. Who cares? There's no cool Dalai Lama figure to go hear. There's no Che poster to put up in your room. Angelina Jolie says a few angry things now and again about the African refugee crisis, but nobody on the Left really cares. That goes for the Right, as well, if we were truly honest with each other.

You may be right, Chris--but the hypocrisy factor is magnitudes different. Absent the GWoT--Iraq/Iran, there'd be far fewer looking the other way. As is, many wonder where the hell the rest of the world is (except as part of the non-shooting UN).

Some points:1. I don't trust the U.N. and am not interesting in building up any armed forces under it's command. Having said that, were it somehow able to muster an effective peace keeping force for Darfur; one without US troops, I wouldn't be opposed.2. I don't trust the left and their new found altruism in regards to Darfur. I wouldn't be surprised if we aren't seeing a prelude to yet another attack on W. for "hyprocritically not acting in a humanitarian way to ease the suffering."

While we fritter on Darfur and are bogged in Iraq, larger geopolitical events of far greater importance are happening and being ignored.

Asia Times argues that America is being quietly dealt its greatest geostrategic defeat since WWII as it's Central Asian initiative has collapsed since we fixated on Iraq. And countries we once wished to have in our sphere are flipping to Russia and China. Countries that they hope to add Iran, Pakistan, and post-US Afghanistan to their ranks. Iran votes on whether or not to join the Shanghai Cooperative Organization on June 15th. The author believes the US is now in precipitous decline as an international power, and so weak that China is relentlessly poaching in our spheres of influence in the New World and Old World.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HE09Ad01.html

And it is being done brilliantly by Rising China, using the SCO. And with China bankrolling Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, it's trade enriching rich American middlemen...Bush dares not complain.

And in our own hemisphere, Latin America is falling to the anti-American Left. Mexico could go to Obragon early this summer and he has already talked about the clout of 35 million dual citizenship Mexican-Americans and Mexican illegals inside the USA to use "their numbers to achieve true justice".

This has all happened in the last 3 years.

And we are all supposed to think Darfur is our next great challenge after the "noble purple fingers" are all happy???

The Taiwanese defense is nothing to sneeze at. With its six newest diesel submarines, Taiwan could make negotiation of the Strait of Malacca perilous for China bound oil tankers. Unless the Chinese could be absolutely sure of Taiwanese surrender in about 30 days, its strategic petroleum reserve would be running dangerously low. China is now working that threat.

Having said that, China could extinguish Taiwan tomorrow; however, a smoldering cinder would not be worth much. It will not do so because China will not kill the golden goose unless extraordinarily provoked - think Taiwan trying to go nuclear. As you know, Taiwan, among a host of other things, produces about 40% of the West's sundry microchips. Probably, China will opt for either the boa method, i.e. slow methodical strangulation or China will simply buy out the owners.

Allen, I think the latter, in a cooperative manner, over time, as PRC continues to liberalize. The hard-line ChiCom party faction numbers around 50,000, middle-aged to elderly. The other 1.3 billion are sure beginning to feel comfy with capitalism (and how). Taiwan/PRC trade is vaulting; the thing is happening before our eyes.

This will be a repeat of Somalia in 1993. First the left will criticize the govenment for not doing something about genocide. Then, when troops are sent and casualties start, the left will criticize the govenment for being incompetent war mongers. For the left, it is a great Win-Win strategy.

They were talking about the letter. Krauthammer was saying how nutty Ahmadinejad is.

He told Bush that since Allah is is his God, and Allah is all powerful, Bush's God must submit to him. He believes in the end of days. He talks regularly with the 12th Imam who's been hidden for the last 1,300 years. He says the Imam will appear in the next couple of years. He knows where he is going to appear. He has built a special highway from where the Imam is going to make his appearance into Tehran so the Imam can make it into Tehran easier.

The Palestinian Authority will receive direct funding from the so-called Quartet: USA, UN, EU, and Russia. This is contrary to the policy articulated by Dr. Rice and President Bush as late as last week.

Said Dr. Rice of the Quartet’s statement issued today, “The thrust of the statement is that the international community is still trying to respond to the needs of the Palestinian people.” How much thrusting and where will become evident at a later date.

Dr. Rice also said, “It is to provide assistance to the Palestinian people so they do not suffer deprivation.”

In her statement, Dr. Rice did not address Israeli “deprivation.” From the beginning of the latest Intifada until 9 May 2006, Israelis “deprived” of life total 1,084. Proportionately, that would be 60,704 dead Americans. Those Israelis “deprived” of health (wounded) total 7,633, the equivalent of 427,448 Americans. There’s a whole lot of “deprivation” goin’ on. It should be reported that 84+% of the dead and wounded were innocent civilians.

Looking at the Israeli “deprivation” of peace, during the year 2005 Israel took 199 bomb attacks, 848 attacks by mortar fire, Kassam rocket attacks of 377, and attacks by gunfire of 1,133 incidents. For a country about the size of New Jersey, sleep “deprivation” must have been an unrelieved concern during the year. Oh, not to be forgotten, as of 28 September 2005, 144 human bombs detonated themselves in attacks on Israelis. As might be imagined, the “deprivation” caused by these mass murderers is incalculable.

When the Israeli delegation visits the President during the month, they really ought to apprise Mr. Bush and Dr. Rice that the poor Palestinian people chose their “deprivation”. The Israelis neither chose nor deserve their “deprivation.”

hey, you can't vote for dogcatcher unless you live there, and i know everybody in Crawford, and the only Allen is the guy who married his 14 yr old first cousin and lives in an old Sears refigerator out at the end of Dry Gulch road.

"What can be avoided or resisted today will be difficult to avoid tomorrow as the tentacles of the American octopus and its collaborators spread…and the seeds of secularism and treason take root and grow." To avert this "disaster" in Pakistan, al-Suri formulates the strategy of resistance:

• Maintain the coherence of the Pakistani forces;

• Prevent the apostate government from filtering out the Islamic forces in the army (which is what they claim the United States is attempting to do);

• Do not allow Musharraf's government to weaken the broad Islamic base of the ulema, students and Islamic and jihadi groups in Pakistan;

Buddy Larsen mentioned the "Abraham Linking Brigade".Was that a slip of the mouse or a new movement made up of millions of armchair internet commentators who have the answer to everything ,but the will and power to do nothing more strenuous than pick up the remote?I want to apologize to Ash.Anyone whose life has deteriorated to the point of watching Kofi on PBS needs our tears of sympathy not our taunting.Cedarford,Considering the optimistic tone of your post would you recommend hanging,razor blades,barbiturates or a bullet?On a serious note,reading "Imperial Grunts"Wow,what a read!The Special Ops guys Kaplan profiles are better men than you and I.With guys like this on the frontlines we have hope.

In a Palestinian refugee camp on the outskirts of Amman, I sat with another jihadi who had just returned from Iraq. Abu Hanin described how he once went with al-Zarqawi to see insurgents in Anbar province in the insurgent west of Iraq.

“He left a big impact on them. His words would stay hanging in the air even after he left. He was like the prophet when he went to people and talked to them ... He speaks with authority and wisdom.’’

Islamabad: Pakistani Foreign Minister Khursheed M Kasuri today expressed regret over the statement of his Afghan counterpart that Islamabad could do more to crack down on Taliban, saying the country has "sacrificed" hundreds of its soldiers in the war against terror.

Islamabad yesterday rejected similar remarks by top US counter-terrorism official Henry Crumpton who said that Pakistan continued to be a "safe haven" for militants.

Larsen - Miami Cubanos are watching the whole thing and are fixin' to do the same thing with their home island as soon as the old buzzard smokes his last cigar.

The original cut 'n run rather than fight "noble refugees" of Cuba????

45 years of their "mighty exile armies" waiting, and claims that "total US embargo will drive Castro to His Knees"??

Never worked.

Listening to Cuban exiles who bailed rather than fight for freedom is like getting all the intelligence and pledged Iraqi support from the "purple-finger ready" millionaire Iraqi exiles.

First move is not to let the Cuban oligarchy get richer, or have ordinary Americans die for Cuban exiles property rights or leaving the whole Border Open because other cut 'n runners seek to emulate the Cuban fleers model. It's coming up with a credible ideology better than Castros.

If anything, the recent wave of propaganda tells us that the jihadists represented by Zarqawi have eclipsed the stale strategies laid out by has-beens like Bin Laden. The battlefield will no longer stretch into obscure and forgotten recesses of the globe, but rather the fire will burn at the very toes of global strategic interests.

The world must prepare for the consequences of this shift in jihadist strategy.

10 years ago I was talking with a friend of Ambassadorial rank and asked what he thought of Africa. His answer was "As little as possible. We could spend our GNP there every year for the next 30 year and have nothing to show for it. Other than South Africa we have no friends in Africa and we all know what we are doing to them. For the next 30 or 40 years Africa will be an international bad joke or tragedy take your pick of words."